Big Television Making Big Moves With Internet Video

by Rich Menga on May 19, 2008 | 6 comments

Cable television was introduced in the early 1980s. Back then it was said that subscriber-based television in no uncertain terms was going to obliterate the over-the-air giants.

Almost 3 decades later it’s painfully obvious that cable is and always will be second banana to the affiliate stations. Remember that as you read thru this.

In the mid-2000s a shift occurred whereas there are now more people with broadband internet connectivity compared to dial-up. As such, online video appeared. YouTube is still king of the hill in that department. There are those who say that internet video is better and will “take over” traditional television.

Not a chance.

And I can prove it to you.

The local convenience store clerk does not know any YouTube “celebrities” by name nor has he or she ever seen any of that celebrity’s videos.

But that clerk does know what American Idol is and has probably seen it several times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you haven’t heard, CBS acquired CNET for 1.8 billion. “The eye” (that’s the CBS logo) has taken a keen interest in “superdistribution” of its content and definitely has a leg up with the recent acquisition.

What this means to you is that you will (finally) see more on-TV content, as in the good stuff, via means other than television such as smartphones and other portable electronic devices that internet data connectivity.

This is a really expensive attempt to get actual broadcast programming on something else other than traditional television. CBS feels that there’s a market out there in the online world.

Bear in mind that Big Television was the last to embrace the internet. At first they absolutely hated it, casting it aside as nothing worth paying attention to.

That tune has obviously changed.

At present, internet video is not second but third banana behind subscriber-based television (cable/satellite.)

Will a superdistribution of content actually help out CBS? Or more importantly, will it bring internet video into a true mainstream environment as something that can actually compete with cable?

We’ll find out soon enough.

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

Post A Comment Using Facebook

Craig
Wow…I don’t know where to start.
Cable television (CATV) started in the late 1940′s as an answer to the FCC’s freeze on television broadcast licenses in 1948. So you’re about 35+ years off.
And it’s doubtful CBS acquired CNet to facilitate their entry into on-line delivery of their content. CBS has been in the on-line content delivery system since before NBC/Fox started their joint venture Hulu. Honestly, CBS has been at the forefront of getting their content on the web – and now that the CBS Audience Network is up and running anyone looking for a CBS product can easily find it. (CBS did make the mistake of multiple on-line distribution agreements – I beleive they have deals with almost 300 sites from Joost and AOL-TV to YouTube and MSN.)
So I’m not convinced that CBS’s acquisition of CNet has anything to do with video distribution – it could very well be that CBS saw an investment and took it. Just like they did when they acquired CSTV (as well as many others). ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS are huge corporations with even larger parent companies – they are bound to invest in lucrative ventures that will further their corporate identity.
CNet has a good thing going – I doubt CBS will want to change that for fear of loosing visitors to the CNet properties.

http://www.menga.net Rich Menga
You’re forgetting the Cable Act of 1984. There were only 28 channels in 1980 and 79 in 1989. Pre-1984 and post-1984 cable televsion are two completely different animals concerning market reach and availability. Modern cable television as we know it started in 1984 and not before. Even while it’s factually accurate CATV started in 1948, I don’t consider pre-1984 cable television a true representation of what it is today.
I don’t believe CBS will mess too much with CNet’s existing formula as it seems to work well for them. But there will be changes to the tune of a tidal wave of CBS programming in CNet’s lineup. Or at least there should be. Whether this actually works concerning getting more eyeballs on CBS’ content remains to be seen however. It also remains to be seen whether or not advertising revenue can even make a dent (much less overtake) against the larger well-established mediums.

Craig
I’m not forgetting the Cable Communications Act of 1984. But that has little to do with this – CATV has been around since 1948 – delivered via a coax line to a subscribers home. How is that different from today? Yes, there are more providers – hence more channels, but the basic infrastructure is the same.
The CC Act of 1984 amended the 1934 Communications Act to include cable – establishing ground rules to ensure everyone was playing on a level playing field. Before 1984 communities had substantially more control than they do now – some didn’t. And let us not forget various governing bodies wanted their take of the tax pie. But it really did nothing more that establish rules and regulations to ensure that neither the franchiser nor the franchisee took advantage of the other.
To say that you don’t consider pre-1984 CATV to be representative of what we have today – there are still markets in this country that do not have upgraded cable service. Yes, they’re rural, but they exist. Those of us lucky enough to live in urban areas that have saturated cable service often forget what it was like having the basic channels. Ironically the basic infrastructure that supplies those rural areas has at it’s core the same infrastructure the rest of us have. And the same cable signal supplied by the big buys in the larger urban areas would work over those rural cables.
Anyway, cable is a dinosaur waiting it’s painful walk to extinction. Their infrastructure is too old and too big to easily revamp and rebuild. The only advantage cable has over other providers is reach (in terms of television delivery). Verizon FioS and ATT Uverse are changing that slowly. And offering more bang for the buck while doing it. CATV will be going the way of vinyl, 8-Track, cassettes, and B&W broadcasts.

http://www.menga.net Rich Menga
Communities never really had any control for the fact they’ve never owned the poles the wires are physically attached to. The utilities companies own those poles. They lease use of those poles to telecommunications and cable television companies.
Yes, the existing physical infrastructure is very old. However, using telecom (ex: Verizon) is just as bad as cable because they’re using the same physical poles the cable companies do. There’s really no advantage either way. Where the poles go is where the reach starts and ends currently.
The only true alternative is satellite as it does not use the poles, but as we all know the spotty semi-reliable nature of the service makes it terrible.
The second true alternative doesn’t exist yet, that being the (very) old VHF band for use as a digital medium rather than its current analog state. Verizon is a player in that field and could deliver wi-fi which would (finally) get off the poles in a reliable way and use a long-range terrestrial-based networking to deliver television/internet content.
In theory this *should* mean lower prices for all (being there is no utilities company involved at that point) and extend the range more or less everywhere, even to the most remote areas where poles can’t go.
For the time being the “dinosaur” as you put it still works and works well. The re-do of the VHF band will offer an alternative in the near future but we’ll have to wait until 2009/2010 for that one – assuming Verizon has something ready at that point.

Craig
There are certainly other alternatives! WiMax and fiber (FTTN, FTTP) are both far better than anything cable can offer. Now that Intel has Sprint’s national network on-board for WiMax, it’s almost a sure thing. And unlike Verizon, they’re not playing with it – Sprint is banking on it to keep the company out of a very deep hole. (Surprisingly, Comcast is on board…wonder why?) And Verizon’s FTTP and ATT’s FTTN (and FTTP in some areas) are superior to cable in every way. Yes, limited by reach, but generally speaking, the twisted pair reach everywhere – last I checked, twisted pair reach over 99% of the households in the United States. That’s as apposed to around 90% for cable.
And you sound like a cable ad with your “but as we all know the spotty semi-reliable nature of the [satellite] service makes it terrible.” I’ve been a satellite subscriber for years – DirecTV and DISH Network. And living in the snowbelt as I do I should have dropped signals galore – at least according to Comcast. But in over 10 years of using satellite as my primary television provider I can recall maybe two times I’ve had signal fade to the point of loosing a broadcast. Satellite’s only failure is the end user needs a clear view of the southwestern sky. Otherwise they provide a great picture, tons of channels, and superior customer service.

http://www.menga.net Rich Menga
When I was living in Maine, during the winter season (and it doesn’t get much colder than a Maine winter) DirecTV would cut out at least 3 times a week for as long as 2 hours each time. And there were no obstructions anywhere near the dish and it was pointed correctly.
Here in Florida, DISH Network has the same problem except this time it’s rain. Every time a semi-hard rain comes by the signal gets knocked out – often. Once again there were no obstructions and dish was pointed correctly.
Needless to say we’re back on cable. Blaming it on the end user is a poor excuse for substandard crappy service.
Funny how you blasted the existing infrastructure as being (in your words) “too old and too big” yet champion twisted pair which uses that same infrastructure for its reach. Just because you put new wires on the poles doesn’t mean the infrastructure is any different; the physical limitations remain the same. Furthermore, twisted pair is older than cable is(!)
WiMAX is junk because it uses microwaves. The band is too narrow and requires expensive specialized equipment both to send and receive. The range is roughly the same as VHF but requires twice the cost just to go the distance (literally.) Microwaves are also subject to sun spots and other weather phenomena whereas VHF isn’t. The VHF band when introduced as a digital medium will obliterate WiMAX easily.
Fiber is junk because of its very limited over-the-wire range. It will be years (if ever) that it reaches remote areas. And the cost to bring fiber to the masses is ridiculous – that’s why it’s taking so long to make it happen.
Both are poor alternatives to standard telecom/cable or satellite.
This is my last comment concerning this because it’s already too far off the original article subject. Reply if you wish; I won’t be veering this train any further off the track.